Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.

The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in order to isolate the Syrian regime.

The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

Advertisement

Examiner reports:

Advertisement

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.

The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Advertisement

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq. The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Ramadi.

The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups — in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S. ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the weapons shipment.

Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed
the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in
order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the
United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated
the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian
government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that
President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition
considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in
eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And
this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition
want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which
had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical
Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.
The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama
administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as
to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Advertisement

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might
have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq.
The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to
al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of
Mosul and Ramadi.
The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate
through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core
al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula.
The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the
European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset
toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in
chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first
official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that
weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including
members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups —
in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The
weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and
125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on
the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S.
ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the
weapons shipment.
Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until
almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s
weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the
intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya,
to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons
were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of
cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed
the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in
order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the
United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated
the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian
government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that
President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition
considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in
eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And
this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition
want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which
had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical
Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.
The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama
administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as
to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Advertisement

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might
have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq.
The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to
al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of
Mosul and Ramadi.
The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate
through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core
al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula.
The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the
European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset
toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in
chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first
official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that
weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including
members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups —
in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The
weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and
125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on
the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S.
ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the
weapons shipment.
Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until
almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s
weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the
intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya,
to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons
were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of
cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed
the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be “supported” in
order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the
United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated
the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian
government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.

One of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents declared that
President Barack Obama and his counterparts within the coalition
considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in
eastern Syria in order to further downfall of the Assad regime. “And
this is exactly what the supporting powers to the (Syrian) opposition
want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” said the DIA report, which
had been formerly classified until its release. Salafists are radical
Sunnis and an offshoot of the Saudi’s Wahhabi sect.
The contents of that document had been promulgated by the Obama
administration to the U.S. Central Command (CENCOM), Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its directorates, as well as
to the State Department and many other related agencies.

Advertisement

Military intelligence officials had also warned that any further damage caused by the Syrian civil war might
have an adverse effect on the fragile government in neighboring Iraq.
The intelligence analysis predicted that such a situation could lead to
al-Qaida in Iraq (AQII) returning especially in the Iraqi cities of
Mosul and Ramadi.
The DIA report also predicted that ISIS would declare a caliphate
through its affiliation with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and
Syria, including members of what the Obama administration terms “core
al-Qaida” to differentiate it from offshoots such as al-Qaida in the
Arabian Peninsula.
The now declassified document appears to confirm that the U.S., the
European Union and other nations viewed Muslim extremists in ISIS as “a strategic asset
toward regime change in Syria.” As a result parts of Iraq have been in
chaos since ISIS began to cross the Syrian border in early June 2014.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also provide the first
official documentation that the Obama administration was well aware that
weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to rebel troops — including
members from ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist terror groups —
in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms thatr: “Weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The
weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and
125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.” The deadly and shocking attack on
the U.S. diplomatic mission that saw four Americans — including a U.S.
ambassador — slaughtered by jihadists occurred just weeks after the
weapons shipment.
Following the downfall and killing of Gaddafi in October 2011 until
almost a year later in September 2012, the desolved Libyan military’s
weapons were stockpiled in Benghazi, Libya. According to the
intelligence report, they were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya,
to the ports located in Syria. The ships used to transport the weapons
were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of
cargo, according to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/declassified-documents-obama-ordered-cia-to-train-isis/#sthash.5SNsTg4K.dpuf

Declassified Department of Defence documents show that Hillary Clinton played a significant role in the rise of power of terrorist group ISIS.

The document were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act by Washington watchdog Judicial Watch.

Wnd.com reports:

Advertisement

They confirm WND reporting over the past three years of evidence that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was involved in shipping weapons from Benghazi to support the al-Qaida-affiliated militias fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, effectively arming the Sunni jihadists who morphed into ISIS.

Advertisement

The documents further confirm WND reporting that the goal of the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack that killed Stevens was to force the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, the “blind sheik” in U.S. prison serving a life sentence for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and to avenge death of a prominent Libyan al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan.

“These documents are jaw-dropping,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.”

Advertisement

Fitton referenced in particular a Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, dated Sept. 12, 2012. It documents that the attack on the Benghazi compound had been carefully planned by the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, BOCAR, which aimed “to kill as many Americans as possible.”

The document, dated the day after the Benghazi attack, was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.

The free WND special report “ISIS Rising,” by Middle East expert and former Department of Defense analyst Michael Maloof, will answer your questions about the jihadist army threatening the West.

“If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president,” Fitton observed.

“These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” Fitton stated.

He said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits.”

The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” provides additional evidence for a WND article Jan. 27 reporting that James “Ace” Lyons – a former four-star admiral who served as the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and a founding member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi – proposed that the attack was an Obama administration-orchestrated kidnapping attempt that went “terribly wrong.”

Lyons speculated that the Obama administration wanted to give the al-Qaida-affiliated rebels operating in conjunction with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to kidnap Stevens and exchange him for the blind Sheik. The purpose of the plan, Lyons says, may have been to furnish the Obama administration with a pretext to justify to the American public the release of the blind sheik to then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, complying with a request Morsi made in his 2012 acceptance speech on becoming president of Egypt.

The Department of Defense documents released by Judicial Watch further reveals that a-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri sent BCOAR leader Abdul Baset, AZUZ, into Libya to seek revenge “for the U.S. killing of Aboyahiye (ALALIBY) in Pakistan.”

The documents provide additional evidence for a 2013 WND story reporting the Benghazi attack was in response to Zawahiri’s request to avenge the U.S. drone killing of Libyan al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area June 4, 2012.

CIA ‘not well organized’ narrative disputed

The newly released DOD and State Department documents also differ from the account of the Benghazi attack Michael Morell, the recently retired CIA deputy director, gives in his current book, “The Great War of Our Time.” On Page 206, he argues that viewing a CIA video of the Benghazi attack made in “real time” caused him to conclude that “with little or no advance planning, extremists in Benghazi made some phone calls, gathered a group of like-minded individuals to go to the TMF.”

In Morell’s narrative, the 9/11 Benghazi attack “was not well organized” but “seemed to be more of a mob that had come to the TMF with the intent of breaching the compound and seeing what damage they could do.”

“When you assess the information from the video, there are few signs of a well-thought-out plan, few signs of command and control, few signs of organization, few signs of even the most basic military tactics in the attack on the TMF,” Morrell said.

“Some of the attackers were armed with small arms; many were not armed at all. No heavy weapons were seen on the videotape,” Morell continued. “Many of the attackers, after entering through the front gate, ran past buildings to the other end of the compound, behaving as if they were thrilled just to have overrun the compound. They did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting vandalism.”

Morell stressed that the Obama administration, despite his objections to the contrary, has refused to make available for public viewing the yet classified CIA “real time” video of the Benghazi attack.

Weapons shipped to Syria

Judicial Watch also noted the DOD documents released this week contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.

An October 2012 DOD report confirmed:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the (Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

A DIA document further detailed:

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

Another Defense Intelligence Agency report, written in August 2012, the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria, said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al-Qaida and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

Judicial Watch noted the sectarian direction of the war in Syria was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS.

The DIA document noted the following:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Judicial Watch commented that some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

On Feb. 26, Judicial Watch has reported on State Department documents obtained by the Washington-based watchdog organization in a separate FOIA lawsuit that revealed aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-helped-isis-rise-to-power-declassified-docs/#sthash.5iUSOh2G.dpuf

From Ocean's Eleven to Star Trek, weapons that wipe out enemy electronics are a staple of science fiction films.

For
years, scientists have been attempting to create such a weapon as part
of Champ, or the Counter-electronics High-powered microwave Advanced
Missile Project.

Now, the US Air Force claims it has advanced the technology, and
says it can deploy it using the stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff
Missile-Extended Range
(JASSM).

According to Foxtrot Alpha, once integrated into JASSM, Champ will be a 'first day of war' standoff weapon.

Because it can be launched by both bombers and fighters,
Lockheed's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM, is an ideal
platform for Champ.

'The
capability is real … and the technology can be available today,' said
Major General Thomas Masiello, the Air Force Research Laboratory.

'That's an operational system already in our tactical air force'

In
2012, aircraft manufacturer Boeing successfully tested the weapon on a
one-hour flight during which it knocked out the computers of an entire
military compound.

During Boeing's experiment, the missile flew low over the Utah
Test and Training Range, discharging electromagnetic pulses on to seven
targets, permanently shutting down their electronics.

DARPA?s High-Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) has
demonstrated sufficient laser power and beam quality to advance to a
series of field tests. The achievement of government acceptance for
field trials marks the end of the
program's laboratory development phase and the beginning of a new
and challenging set of tests against rockets, mortars, vehicles and
surrogate surface-to-air missiles at White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico.

Boeing said that the test was so successful even the camera recording it was disabled.

Although the project is shrouded in secrecy, experts believe the missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon.

This
uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of
energy which causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering
them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.

'In
the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy's
electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or
aircraft arrive,' he said during the initial test.

However,
experts fear that the project could create an arms race, with countries
scrambling to build their own electromagnetic pulse weapons.

Professor
Trevor Taylor, Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services
Institute, has previously said the Western world would be more
vulnerable attack because of its increased reliance on electronics.

'Should
the US be known to have developed such a technology to the production
stage, it would drive others to try to act similarly,' he said.

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/May28/282.html#aUbmBmbAIgDksApH.99

Paradigm Shift Needed in ASEAN’S Approach to South China Sea Dispute

In late April, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
concluded its 26th summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The summit took
place amidst China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea,
which continue to be a potential flashpoint in the region. While the
issue has received significant attention from member states, meaningful
progress on the dispute is still slow with the bloc shying away from
criticizing China directly over its behavior in the area. The final
statement with a day-later release however was still stronger than
usual, as Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak stressed upon an urgent
need to address ongoing reclamation works in the South China Sea.
The heavier than usual statement, as expected, triggered an angry
reaction from Beijing, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei
saying that ASEAN should refrain from making statements about the
dispute as not all of its members are involved. This is yet another
indication of Beijing’s preference for bilateral solutions instead of
those negotiated through multilateral framework such as ASEAN. More
importantly, Beijing’s exploitation of the bloc’s inability to come
together as a united force in the South China Sea dispute could also be
regarded as a driving force in its ever-increasing assertiveness in the
region.
As host of this year’s summit, Malaysia’s decision to avoid overtly
irking China in the South China Sea dispute is a clear reflection of
Najib administration’s desire to lead the bloc in a neutral direction
while maintaining Kuala Lumpur’s close economic ties with Beijing. While
this year’s statement was stronger than previous ones, vocal critics of
China such as the Philippines and Vietnam still insisted that it should
have gone further, namely by calling for an international tribunal. The
Philippine President Benigno Aquino, for instance has called for a
stronger regional stand and said the dispute was a “regional issue” with
several ramifications, namely freedom of navigation and damage to
maritime environments.
This was not the first time a host country has sought to tone down
criticism of China’s behavior in the South China Sea. Similarly in 2012,
Cambodia’s refusal to be drawn into the dispute ultimately led to the
breakdown of the summit with members failing to agree on a joint
communique mentioning the Scarborough Shoals, a contested area between
China and the Philippines. The episode was disastrous as it led to
acrimonious exchanges between Phnom Penh and Manila as well as
demonstrating that the “ASEAN way” of consensus had failed miserably.
The absence of a communique that year also illustrated that not all
members have shared strategic concerns when it comes to the South China
Sea, further dealing a blow to a coherent response to China’s aggressive
stance.
Although Indonesia’s then-foreign minister Marty Natalegawa managed
to narrow the differences by way of “shuttle diplomacy,” the underlying
problem still lies in Beijing’s ability to establish close economic ties
with the individual countries of the bloc. In most cases, these
countries’ interdependence on China for trade also bears with it an
opportunity cost, such as offering concessions on security-related
matters like Beijing’s adherence to the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct
of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Without balancing economic
interests and security ones, China will be able to jostle the bloc
around whenever it feels threatened by individual member states in the
bloc by offering various incentives to other members, splitting them
further apart.
In addition, ASEAN’s decision-making formula of consensus among all
member states for a proposal to move forward is detrimental in this
case. As demonstrated in the Cambodia incident, a veto by a member will
effectively kill any proposal therefore preventing progress on the
matter. This is because in contrast with common economic goals as laid
down in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), members do not share a
common view when it comes to their “threat perception” of China. For
countries like Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia, the South China Sea dispute
is ultimately an issue between their neighbors such as Malaysia,
Philippines, Vietnam, and Beijing, and as such is not worth risking
their bilateral ties for. Without clearly defining the strategic
interests of ASEAN, this has not only resulted in frustration among
member states but also set a dangerous precedent should there be
disputes over security-related matters with other big powers in the
future.
Critics have argued that the failure to speak with one voice is
ASEAN’s biggest diplomatic challenge since its formation, and it will
likely to make the bloc less relevant despite its aspiration to become a
viable economic community by 2015. The absence of a clear response to
the dispute is worrying against the backdrop of recent developments such
as the 2013 showdown at the Second James Shoal and the placement of an
oil rig close to Vietnam by China, both of which have the potential to
escalate into armed conflict. Increasingly intimidated, it is therefore
not surprising that countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have
instead chosen to deepen their security ties via traditional tools such
as strengthening bilateral dialogues and improving diplomatic
co-ordination on the South China Sea issue. For Hanoi and Manila,
China’s so-called “nine-dashed line” is simply illegitimate and the
adoption of common positions among them is vital for the ultimate
culmination of the South China Sea dispute as a bloc-wide strategic
issue.
The division within ASEAN needs to be resolved so that the talks to
establish a Code of Conduct (COC), often rejected by China, can move
forward and be implemented. However, against a backdrop of China’s
closer economic links with individual member states, such unity will
most likely be harder to forge as national interests often supersede
regional ones therefore making a paradigm shift more necessary than
ever. This means the so-called “gradual progress and consensus through
consultations” approach that require all ten-member states to reach an
agreement will need to be changed. Instead, the “ASEAN-X” formula that
has been used on trade, investment, and economic issues shall now be
considered for security-related matters of such magnitude. Under this
formula, a reasonable majority of member states will be able to make a
decision despite a veto so that it can prevent a single state from
hijacking the entire agenda due to a conflict of interest. In the South
China Sea dispute, this means member states, particularly claimants such
as Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines as well as interested
stakeholders like Indonesia and Singapore can pursue the establishment
of a COC in the area while Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos can opt out by
abstaining from the voting process.
The change in voting mechanism however should also come with a
pursuit of continuous stability in the region. Malaysia’s chairmanship
of ASEAN could be a starting point for a new dynamic in the resolution
of the South China Sea dispute. Apart from being a claimant, its close
ties with China would also be beneficial in pushing the COC agenda
ahead. With a combination of incentives and diplomatic capital, Kuala
Lumpur should play smart diplomacy within the bloc and with China in
reaching a breakthrough on one of the most dangerous disputes of the
present day.
Although the summit in Kuala Lumpur has produced a less than desired
result on the South China Sea, the room to maneuver is still available
for ASEAN and China to steer themselves away from a collision course and
head toward the COC instead. The willingness of both sides to abide by
international conventions for now should serve as a foundation in
restoring the trust deficit between individual member states and
Beijing.
However, the question is how long it will take before such adherence
to international convention comes to an abrupt end due to unilateral
action by any claimant, or even an outside force that destabilizes the
region thus undermining Southeast Asia’s relative stability for decades.
There have already been signs of tension last week with the Chinese
navy warning the United States to back off from the South China Sea
after the latter’s deployment of P-8A Poseidon aircraft for surveillance
purpose in the area. If mismanaged, this development, together with the
Philippines’ and Vietnam’s alliance with the US, could be a tipping
point towards full-blown military conflict between the two major powers
in the near future.

Everyone,
from political pundits in Washington to the Pope in Rome, including
most journalists in the mass media and in the alternative press, have
focused on the US moves toward ending the economic blockade of Cuba and
gradually opening diplomatic relations. Talk is rife of a ‘major shift’
in US policy toward Latin America with the emphasis on diplomacyand
reconciliation. Even most progressive writers and journals have ceased
writing about US imperialism.

However,
there is mounting evidence that Washington’s negotiations with Cuba are
merely one part of a two-track policy. There is clearly a major US
build-up in Latin America, with increasing reliance on ‘military
platforms’, designed to launch direct military interventions in
strategic countries.

Moreover,
US policymakers are actively involved in promoting ‘client’ opposition
parties, movements and personalities to destabilize independent
governments and are intent on re-imposing US domination.

In
this essay we will start our discussion with the origins and unfolding
of this ‘two track’ policy, its current manifestations, and projections
into the future. We will conclude by evaluating the possibilities of
re-establishing US imperial domination in the region.

Origins of the Two Track Policy

Washington’s
pursuit of a ‘two-track policy’, based on combining ‘reformist
policies’ toward some political formations, while working to overthrow
other regimes and movements by force and military intervention, was
practiced by the early Kennedy Administration following the Cuban
revolution. Kennedy announced a vast new economic program of aid, loans
and investments dubbed the ‘Alliance for Progress’ to promote
development and social reform in Latin American countries willing to
align with the US. At the same time the Kennedy regime escalated US
military aid and joint exercises in the region. Kennedy sponsored a
large contingent of Special Forces ‘Green Berets’ – to engage in
counter-insurgency warfare. The ‘Alliance for Progress’ was
designed to counter the mass appeal of the social-revolutionary changes
underway in Cuba with its own program of ‘social reform’. While Kennedy
promoted watered-down reforms in Latin America, he launched the ‘secret’
CIA (‘Bay of Pigs’) invasion of Cuba in 1961and naval blockade in 1962
(the so-called ‘missile crises’). The two-track policy ended up
sacrificing social reforms and strengthening military repression. By the
mid-1970’s the ‘two-tracks’ became one – force. The US invaded the
Dominican Republic in 1965. It backed a series of military coups
throughout the region, effectively isolating Cuba. As a result, Latin
America’s labor force experienced nearly a quarter century of declining
living standards.

By the
1980’s US client-dictators had lost their usefulness and Washington once
again took up a dual strategy: On one track, the White House
wholeheartedly backed their military-client rulers’ neo-liberal agenda
and sponsored them as junior partners in Washington’s regional hegemony.
On the other track, they promoted a shift to highly controlled
electoral politics, which they described as a ‘democratic transition’,
in order to ‘decompress’ mass social pressures against its military
clients. Washington secured the introduction of elections and promoted
client politicians willing to continue the neo-liberal socio-economic
framework established by the military regimes.

By
the turn of the new century, the cumulative grievances of thirty years
of repressive rule, regressive neo-liberal socio-economic policies and
the denationalization and privatization of the national patrimony had
caused an explosion of mass social discontent. This led to the overthrow
and electoral defeat of Washington’s neo-liberal client regimes.

Throughout
most of Latin America, mass movements were demanding a break with
US-centered ‘integration’ programs. Overt anti-imperialism grew and
intensified. The period saw the emergence of numerous center-left
governments in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Honduras and Nicaragua. Beyond the regime changes , world
economic forces had altered: growing Asian markets, their demand for
Latin American raw materials and the global rise of commodity prices
helped to stimulate the development of Latin American-centered regional
organizations outside of Washington’s control.

Washington
was still embedded in its 25 year ‘single-track’ policy of backing
civil-military authoritarian and imposing neo-liberal policies and was
unable to respond and present a reform alternative to the
anti-imperialist, center-left challenge to its dominance. Instead,
Washington worked to reverse the new party- power configuration. Its
overseas agencies, the Agency for International Development (AID), the
Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and embassies worked to destabilize the
new governments in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay and Honduras.
The US ‘single-track’ of intervention and destabilization failed
throughout the first decade of the new century (with the exception of
Honduras and Paraguay.

In
the end Washington remained politically isolated. Its integration
schemes were rejected. Its market shares in Latin America declined.
Washington not only lost its automatic majority in the Organization of
American States (OAS), but it became a distinct minority.

Washington’s
‘single track’ policy of relying on the ‘stick’ and holding back on the
‘carrot’ was based on several considerations: The Bush and Obama
regimes were deeply influenced by the US’s twenty-five year domination
of the region (1975-2000) and the notion that the uprisings and
political changes in Latin America in the subsequent decade were
ephemeral, vulnerable and easily reversed. Moreover, Washington,
accustomed to over a century of economic domination of markets,
resources and labor, took for granted that its hegemony was unalterable.
The White House failed to recognize the power of China’s growing share
of the Latin American market. The State Department ignored the capacity
of Latin American governments to integrate their markets and exclude the
US.

US State Department
officials never moved beyond the discredited neo-liberal doctrine that
they had successfully promoted in the 1990’s. The White House failed to
adopt a ‘reformist’ turn to counter the appeal of radical
reformers like Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. This was most
evident in the Caribbean and the Andean countries where President Chavez
launched his two ‘alliances for progress’: ‘Petro-Caribe’
(Venezuela’s program of supplying cheap, heavily subsidized, fuel to
poor Central American and Caribbean countries and heating oil to poor
neighborhoods in the US) and ‘ALBA’ (Chavez’ political-economic
union of Andean states, plus Cuba and Nicaragua, designed to promote
regional political solidarity and economic ties.) Both programs were
heavily financed by Caracas. Washington failed to come up with a
successful alternative plan.

Unable
to win diplomatically or in the ‘battle of ideas’, Washington resorted
to the ‘big stick’ and sought to disrupt Venezuela’s regional economic
program rather than compete with Chavez’ generous and beneficial aid
packages. The US’ ‘spoiler tactics’ backfired: In 2009, the Obama regime
backed a military coup in Honduras, ousting the elected liberal
reformist President Zelaya and installed a bloody tyrant, a throwback to
the 1970s when the US backed Chilean coup brought General Pinochet to
power. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, in an act of pure political
buffoonery, refused to call Zelaya’s violent ouster a coup and moved
swiftly to recognize the dictatorship. No other government backed the US
in its Honduras policy. There was universal condemnation of the coup,
highlighting Washington’s isolation.

Repeatedly,
Washington tried to use its ‘hegemonic card’ but it was roundly
outvoted at regional meetings. At the Summit of the Americas in 2010,
Latin American countries overrode US objections and voted to invite Cuba
to its next meeting, defying a 50-year old US veto. The US was left
alone in its opposition.

The
position of Washington was further weakened by the decade-long
commodity boom (spurred by China’s voracious demand for agro-mineral
products). The ‘mega-cycle’ undermined US Treasury and State
Department’s anticipation of a price collapse. In previous cycles,
commodity ‘busts’ had forced center-left governments to run to the US
controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF) for highly conditioned
balance of payment loans, which the White House used to impose its
neo-liberal policies and political dominance. The ‘mega-cycle’ generated
rising revenues and incomes. This gave the center-left governments
enormous leverage to avoid the ‘debt traps’ and to marginalize the IMF.
This virtually eliminated US-imposed conditionality and allowed Latin
governments to pursue populist-nationalist policies. These policies
decreased poverty and unemployment. Washington played the ‘crisis card’
and lost. Nevertheless Washington continued working with extreme
rightwing opposition groups to destabilize the progressive governments,
in the hope that ‘come the crash’, Washington’s proxies would ‘waltz
right in’ and take over.

The Re-Introduction of the ‘Two Track’ Policy
After
a decade and a half of hard knocks, repeated failures of its ‘big
stick’ policies, rejection of US-centered integration schemes and
multiple resounding defeats of its client-politicians at the ballot box,
Washington finally began to ‘rethink’ its ‘one track’ policy and
tentatively explore a limited ‘two track’ approach.

The
‘two-tracks’, however, encompass polarities clearly marked by the
recent past. While the Obama regime opened negotiations and moved toward
establishing relations with Cuba, it escalated the military threats
toward Venezuela by absurdly labeling Caracas as a ‘national security threat to the US.’

Washington
had woken up to the fact that its bellicose policy toward Cuba had been
universally rejected and had left the US isolated from Latin America.
The Obama regime decided to claim some ‘reformist credentials’ by showcasing its opening to Cuba. The ‘opening to Cuba’
is really part of a wider policy of a more active political
intervention in Latin America. Washington will take full advantage of
the increased vulnerability of the center-left governments as the
commodity mega-cycle comes to an end and prices collapse. Washington
applauds the fiscal austerity program pursued by Dilma Rousseff’s regime
in Brazil. It wholeheartedly backs newly elected Tabaré Vázquez’s
“Broad Front” regime in Uruguay with its free market policies and
structural adjustment. It publicly supports Chilean President Bachelet’s
recent appointment of center-right, Christian Democrats to Cabinet
posts to accommodate big business.

These
changes within Latin America provide an ‘opening’ for Washington to
pursue a ‘dual track’ policy: On the one hand Washington is increasing
political and economic pressure and intensifying its propaganda campaign
against ‘state interventionist’ policies and regimes in the immediate
period. On the other hand, the Pentagon is intensifying and escalating
its presence in Central America and its immediate vicinity. The goal is
ultimately to regain leverage over the military command in the rest of
the South American continent.

The
Miami Herald (5/10/15) reported that the Obama Administration had sent
280 US marines to Central America without any specific mission or
pretext. Coming so soon after the Summit of the Americas in Panama
(April 10 -11, 2015), this action has great symbolic importance. While
the presence of Cuba at the Summit may have been hailed as a diplomatic
victory for reconciliation within the Americas, the dispatch of hundreds
of US marines to Central America suggests another scenario in the
making.

Ironically,
at the Summit meeting, the Secretary General of the Union of South
American Nations (UNASUR), former Colombian president (1994-98) Ernesto
Samper, called for the US to remove all its military bases from Latin
America, including Guantanamo: “A good point in the new agenda of relations in Latin America would be the elimination of the US military bases”.

The point of the US ‘opening’
to Cuba is precisely to signal its greater involvement in Latin
America, one that includes a return to more robust US military
intervention. The strategic intent is to restore neo-liberal client
regimes, by ballots or bullets.

Conclusion

Washington’s current adoption of a two-track policy is a ‘cheap version’ of the John F. Kennedy policy of combining the ‘Alliance for Progress’ with the ‘Green Berets’.
However, Obama offers little in the way of financial support for
modernization and reform to complement his drive to restore neo-liberal
dominance.

After a decade
and a half of political retreat, diplomatic isolation and relative loss
of military leverage, the Obama regime has taken over six years to
recognize the depth of its isolation. When Assistant Secretary for
Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta Jacobson, claimed she was ‘surprised and disappointed’ when every Latin American country opposed Obama’s claim that Venezuela represented a ‘national security threat to the United States’,
she exposed just how ignorant and out-of-touch the State Department has
become with regard to Washington’s capacity to influence Latin America
in support of its imperial agenda of intervention.

With
the decline and retreat of the center-left, the Obama regime has been
eager to exploit the two-track strategy. As long as the FARC-President
Santos peace talks in Colombia advance, Washington is likely to
recalibrate its military presence in Colombia to emphasize its
destabilization campaign against Venezuela. The State Department will
increase diplomatic overtures to Bolivia. The National Endowment for
Democracy will intensify its intervention in this year’s Argentine
elections.

Varied and
changing circumstances dictate flexible tactics. Hovering over
Washington’s tactical shifts is an ominous strategic outlook directed
toward increasing military leverage. As the peace negotiations between
the Colombian government and FARC guerrillas advance toward an accord,
the pretext for maintaining seven US military bases and several thousand
US military and Special Forces troops diminishes. However, Colombian
President Santos has given no indication that a ‘peace agreement’
would be conditioned on the withdrawal of US troops or closing of its
bases. In other words, the US Southern Command would retain a vital
military platform and infrastructure capable of launching attacks
against Venezuela, Ecuador, Central America and the Caribbean. With
military bases throughout the region, in Colombia, Cuba (Guantanamo),
Honduras (Soto Cano in Palmerola), Curacao, Aruba and Peru, Washington
can quickly mobilize interventionary forces. Military ties with the
armed forces of Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile ensure continued joint
exercises and close co-ordination of so-called ‘security’ policies in
the ‘Southern Cone’ of
Latin America. This strategy is specifically designed to prepare for
internal repression against popular movements, whenever and wherever
class struggle intensifies in Latin America. The two-track policy, in
force today, plays out through political-diplomatic and military
strategies.

In the immediate
period throughout most of the region, Washington pursues a policy of
political, diplomatic and economic intervention and pressure. The White
House is counting on the ‘rightwing swing’ of former
center-left governments to facilitate the return to power of unabashedly
neo-liberal client-regimes in future elections. This is especially true
with regard to Brazil and Argentina.

The ‘political-diplomatic track’
is evident in Washington’s moves to re-establish relations with Bolivia
and to strengthen allies elsewhere in order to leverage favorable
policies in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba. Washington proposes to offer
diplomatic and trade agreements in exchange for a ‘toning down’ of
anti-imperialist criticism and weakening the ‘Chavez-era’ programs of
regional integration.

The ‘two-track approach’,
as applied to Venezuela, has a more overt military component than
elsewhere. Washington will continue to subsidize violent paramilitary
border crossings from Colombia. It will continue to encourage domestic
terrorist sabotage of the power grid and food distribution system. The
strategic goal is to erode the electoral base of the Maduro government,
in preparation for the legislative elections in the fall of 2015. When
it comes to Venezuela, Washington is pursuing a ‘four step’ strategy:

(1) Indirect violent intervention to erode the electoral support of the government

(2) Large-scale financing of the electoral campaign of the legislative opposition to secure a majority in Congress

(3) A massive media campaign in favor of a Congressional vote for a referendum impeaching the President

(4) A large-scale financial, political and media campaign to secure a majority vote for impeachment by referendum.

In
the likelihood of a close vote, the Pentagon would prepare a rapid
military intervention with its domestic collaborators seeking a
‘Honduras-style’ overthrow of Maduro.

The
strategic and tactical weakness of the two-track policy is the absence
of any sustained and comprehensive economic aid, trade and investment
program that would attract and hold middle class voters. Washington is
counting more on the negative effects of the crisis to restore its
neo-liberal clients. The problem with this approach is that the pro-US
forces can only promise a return to orthodox austerity programs,
reversing social and public welfare programs , while making large-scale
economic concessions to major foreign investors and bankers. The
implementation of such regressive programs are going to ignite and
intensify class, community-based and ethnic conflicts.

The ‘electoral transition’
strategy of the US is a temporary expedient, in light of the highly
unpopular economic policies, which it would surely implement. The
complete absence of any substantial US socio-economic aid to cushion the
adverse effects on working families means that the US client-electoral
victories will not last long. That is why and where the US strategic
military build-up comes into play: The success of track-one, the pursuit
of political-diplomatic tactics, will inevitably polarize Latin
American society and heighten prospects for class struggle. Washington
hopes that it will have its political-military client-allies ready to
respond with violent repression. Direct intervention and heightened
domestic repression will come into play to secure US dominance.

The ‘two-track strategy’ will, once again, evolve into a ‘one-track strategy’
designed to return Latin America as a satellite region, ripe for
pillage by extractive multi-nationals and financial speculators.

As
we have seen over the past decade and a half, ‘one-track policies’ lead
to social upheavals. And the next time around the results may go far
beyond progressive center-left regimes toward truly social-revolutionary
governments!

Epilogue

US
empire-builders have clearly demonstrated throughout the world their
inability to intervene and produce stable, prosperous and productive
client states (Iraq and Libya are prime examples). There is no reason to
believe, even if the US ‘two-track policy’ leads to temporary
electoral victories, that Washington’s efforts to restore dominance will
succeed in Latin America, least of all because its strategy lacks any
mechanism for economic aid and social reforms that could maintain a
pro-US elite in power. For example, how could the US possibly offset
China’s $50 billion aid package to Brazil except through violence and
repression.

It is important
to analyze how the rise of China, Russia, strong regional markets and
new centers of finance have severely weakened the efforts by client
regimes to realign with the US. Military coups and free markets are no
longer guaranteed formulas for success in Latin America: Their past
failures are too recent to forget.

Finally the ‘financialization’ of the US economy, what even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) describes as the negative impact of ‘too much finance’
(Financial Times 5/13/15, p 4), means that the US cannot allocate
capital resources to develop productive activity in Latin America. The
imperial state can only serve as a violent debt collector for its banks
in the context of large-scale unemployment. Financial and extractive
imperialism is a politico-economic cocktail for detonating social
revolution on a continent-wide basis – far beyond the capacity of the US
marines to prevent or suppress.

The Geopolitical Stakes of the 2016 Philippine Elections

The outcome of next year’s presidential election will have significant implications for the country’s foreign policy.

By Jeffrey Ordaniel

May 28, 2015

"...These
domestic political dynamics in the Philippines could prove to be very
consequential in Manila’s diplomacy in the years ahead. Already, Binay
has indicated that he would have a different China policy than the one
pursued by Aquino. Local media quoted him recently as saying, “we have
to accept the fact that China has all the capital and we have the
property over there, so why don’t we try to develop that property as a
joint venture? Apparently, Binay has also not been briefed on why a
joint venture with China on equal terms would be a violation of the
country’s constitution, the document he would have to vow to defend
should he be elected president...Overall, a consensus in the ruling
party is slowly forming and its members seem to be zeroing in on a
Roxas-Poe or Poe-Roxas presidential ticket to take on the populist
Binay..."

For
almost four years now, the Philippines has been Southeast Asia’s
fastest growing major economy. Once dubbed the “sick man” of Asia, the
country’s image has enjoyed a turnaround under President Benigno Aquino
III. The Philippines sovereign credit rating has been upgraded from junk
to investment grade by all major credit rating agencies. Though
still lagging its peers in ASEAN, foreign direct investment and tourism
figures have all seen remarkable upticks. Investments in human and
economic infrastructure through public-private partnerships, overseas
development assistance, and other schemes have been unprecedented under
the current administration, despite bureaucratic and other delays.

Most
significantly, though, Aquino’s foreign policy has made headlines
around the world. Specifically, Manila has drawn closer to Washington.
In April 2014, the two treaty-allies signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA),
which will soon see American troops with their air and naval assets
rotate through Philippine military bases, including Subic Bay and
Palawan, both facing the contested South China Sea. The Philippines
also filed a case against
China through a UN-backed court to invalidate the infamous nine-dashed
line map in the South China Sea, while simultaneously internationalizing
the disputes, connecting them to wider international concerns such as
freedom of navigation and access to global commons. The legal move is
the boldest yet among ASEAN-claimant countries. Both the EDCA, an
external balancing act, and the arbitration case, an appeal to the rule
of law and for favorable global public opinion, represent Manila’s
resolve in defending its sovereign claims and maritime entitlements in
the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, the Philippines has embarked on a modest military modernization program that,
if realized, will give its armed forces submarines and other assets
required for the military’s envisioned “minimum credible defense”
capabilities by 2020. Overall, Manila’s South China Sea policy under
Aquino has been to internationalize, to legalize, and to balance China.

However,
come May 2016, the country’s economic, security, and foreign policies
will all enter a state of flux, as the Philippines gears up to hold its
fifth presidential election since returning to democracy in 1986. The
ruling Liberal Party has yet to decide on its presidential ticket for
next year’s election, but Aquino has already indicated that Manuel “Mar”
Roxas II, the current secretary of Interior and Local Government and a
losing vice-presidential candidate in 2010, is his top choice for a
successor. In an interview with
the local media, the president said of Roxas, “He has demonstrated
quite a wide range of expertise in so many different assignments. He is a
valuable member of the Cabinet. He has been a staunch leader of the
party… And he has demonstrated the ability to sacrifice, previously, for
instance, when he gave way to me. So all of these traits should point
out that he is – to my mind, as far as our coalition is concerned – at
the top of the list.”

In
fact, Roxas was supposed to run for president in 2010, when he was at
his prime in terms of name recognition and popularity, but gave way to
Aquino whose own mass appeal and corruption-free image were catapulted
by the sudden death of his mother, democracy icon and former President
Cory Aquino in 2009.

However, Roxas has not been performing well in recent opinion polls.
Currently leading the pack is Vice President Jejomar Binay of the
opposition party, United Nationalist Alliance. Binay’s populist
platform, which focuses on social welfare programs for the poor, seems
to be resonating. However, the vice-president is hounded by allegations of massive corruption during
his long stint as mayor of the country’s financial district, Makati.
The country’s Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) was recently
successful in urging the courts tofreeze Binay’s
bank accounts, and those of his immediate family members and alleged
fronts. AMLC argued that the total of the bank accounts and transactions
in question had reached 16 billion pesos (about $358 million) since
2008, amounts inconsistent with statutory declarations made. Since that
revelation, Binay has seen his trust ratings plummet, although he still
holds the lead in presidential polls.

Binay’s
answer to these allegations is a blanket denial, dismissing them as
politically motivated. Still, opinion polls in the coming months may
move against him, especially as the case against the vice-president
moves forward in court.

Because
the Philippines has a weak, multi-party system, the ruling party is
also reportedly eyeing neophyte Senator Grace Poe, an independent, as
its alternative standard-bearer, if not as the vice-presidential partner
of the less popular Roxas. Grace is the daughter of Fernando Poe, the
losing opponent of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the 2004
election, an election Arroyo critics say was largely rigged. Should the
ruling party play it safe, Poe will be its presidential candidate.
Should she win, she will be the third woman to rule the Philippines.

Diplomatic Implications

These
domestic political dynamics in the Philippines could prove to be very
consequential in Manila’s diplomacy in the years ahead. Already, Binay
has indicated that he would have a different China policy than the one
pursued by Aquino. Local media quoted him
recently as saying, “we have to accept the fact that China has all the
capital and we have the property over there, so why don’t we try to
develop that property as a joint venture?” China has long called for
joint development in the South China Sea, but other claimant-states’
unease with Beijing’s premise of “indisputable sovereignty” has
prevented any progress on the idea.

Apparently, Binay has also not been briefed on why a joint venture with China on equal terms would be a violation of
the country’s constitution, the document he would have to vow to defend
should he be elected president. But some in the Philippine Left – who
have always been against an American presence in the country – have
already expressed support for Binay, among them University of the
Philippines Professor Harry Roque, who has asked the country’s Supreme
Court to block the implementation of EDCA and declare the
U.S.-Philippine deal unconstitutional.

Already, Binay’s stated China doctrine has drawn criticism from the West. Scholar Malcolm Cook wrote,
“If Binay wins and follows through on these views, it would be a return
to the policy preferred by Aquino’s predecessor, President
Macapagal-Arroyo… The foreshadowing of a second reversal of Philippines
policy on its maritime boundary dispute with China in two presidential
terms shows how divided the Philippine political elite and their
financial backers are on this issue and its place in Philippines-China
relations. A second reversal in two presidential terms would rightfully
reinforce views within ASEAN, and in Washington and Tokyo, about the
unreliability of the flip-flopping Philippines, and would throw into
doubt the wisdom of aligning their South China Sea approaches with the
policy prevailing in Manila at any given moment.” It goes without saying
that a Binay win would give China reason to celebrate.

If
the Liberal Party’s candidate wins, either Roxas or Poe, a continuity
of policy, for at least six more years, is likely. It would signal
consistency in the Philippines’ relations with the U.S., which has
recently stepped up its South China Sea engagements in a bid to
delegitimize China’s land reclamation in disputed areas. It would also
be good news for Japan, which has been calling for greater rule of law
in East Asia, a call echoed by Aquino’s decision to pursue a court case
against Beijing. As the standard-bearer of the ruling party, Roxas is
expected to largely continue Aquino’s foreign policy direction.

It
is also worth noting that Poe formerly held both Filipino and American
citizenship. She renounced her dual-citizenship and reverted back to
being a “natural-born Filipino” before serving the Aquino Government in
2010. Hence, an anti-American foreign policy would be least expected
from a Poe presidency. Overall, a consensus in the ruling party is
slowly forming and its members seem to be zeroing in on a Roxas-Poe or
Poe-Roxas presidential ticket to take on the populist Binay.

In
May 2016, both Washington and Beijing will have something at stake in
an election that will very likely demonstrate the interplay of a
country’s domestic politics and its foreign policy choices.

Jeffrey
Ordaniel is a PhD Candidate at the Security and International Studies
Program of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com